Some
World Issues and Our Morals and Ethics
Morals
and ethics change with time. Four thousand years ago it was quite ethical and
moral to conquer your neighbors by force, enslave the conquered men and
children, rape and enslave the women.
Ancient empires ruled by fear.
Punishments for perceived crimes were horrendous. Crucifixions, burning and skinning alive were
not uncommon. Might was right and
dictated what was moral and ethical.
Codes of conduct were dictated by the current ruler(s).
Hammurabi
of Babylon in 1772 BCE produced a set of 282 rules and laws dictating human dealings
with one another. Whilst most of these rules
were concerned with property, they did include some rules of human conduct. Many of our Judeo/Christian rules emanate from
Hammurabi’s work.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Code_of_Hammurabi_%28Harper_translation%29. Deuteronomy gave us 10
commandments and 613 detailed laws and rules.
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/613laws.html.
Jesus
gave us 50 commandments.
Confucius and
Buddha codified other laws and rules of living.
Ancient
religions attached mystical/mythological reasons and created deities around
natural and unexplained occurrences. Death, birth, fertility, weather, crops
and seasons, and other local phenomena were treated mystically and with
reverence. Rulers were equated with deities and were worshipped. Rules and laws were made part of the mix and
reflected the morals and ethics of the ruling class. Most human beings in early civilizations were
chattel, to be used for the enrichment and comfort of the oligarchic rulers. They followed the rules or were
tortured/killed, and knew very little of individual ethics/morals.
Thales
of Miletus is credited, ca. 650 BCE, with being the first philosopher who tried
to explain the world by scientific and rational means, rather than with
mythology. All of the great thinkers of
the time, Democritus, Herodotus, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and more recent
philosophers, owe their beginnings to Thales of Miletus.
These
two main themes, religion based on mystical/mythical beliefs, and philosophy/science,
based on observable and measureable phenomena, continued to shape
civilizations, sometimes in opposition, and sometimes in concert with one
another. A melding of these belief
systems resulted in early forms of democracy in Greece and Rome, and hence
expanded ethical and moral knowledge and practice. It is to be noted that these early
democracies were rudimentary in nature.
One was equal in the democracy so long as he was patrician, male and not
a slave. After a hiatus of several
millennia our own American Republic was formed, based on democratic principles. Again, it was more an expanded ruling
oligarchy than a true democracy. One was
equal if he were white, male and not a slave.
Still, this early American democracy catered not only to white patricians,
it also enfranchised the common man.
This was a major break-through.
“The great unwashed” finally had a voice in their own affairs.
With
time and a brutal civil war, slavery was abolished. Finally in the 1920’s women were
enfranchised. One hundred years after
the civil war ended, people of color attained some modicum of human
equality. Apparently we Americans (and
other westerners) are loathe to change our inbred morals and ethics without a
fight.
All of the above concerning ethics and
morals worked reasonably well within a given social group, or tribe, or
country, or alliance. It broke down at
wartime or with minorities within a social group when bigotry was allowed to
flourish. In an antagonistic mode
differences in people were seized upon to dehumanize them and justify
atrocities against them. Many examples
abound in modern times.
Bob
Dylan could have summarized all of the above with his lyric “the times they are
a-changin’”. Our concepts of right and
wrong and what is permitted in society changes with time. Slavery and women’s
suffrage are major examples, but legal use of opium, alcohol and other drugs in
the past, monopolies/anti-trust, civil rights; workers’ rights, etc are other
examples.
History has taught us that in a
representative democracy like the U.S., if enough people back or oppose an
issue, Federal laws or judicial pronouncements will ultimately define it, and
people in the states will respond to these Federal actions in their own
right. Examples are abortion (Roe vs.
Wade), and drinking age laws across the country. There are Federal laws and guidelines, but
the various states have passed their own mitigating laws around these issues. As a result, what is the law concerning
abortion? Can I legally buy alcohol at
age 19? It depends what state you’re
in. Legalized marijuana has gone the
other way. Several states have legalized
marijuana for various uses, but the Federal government still considers
marijuana use illegal.
Where
do we stand now with issues that test our morals and ethics? This paper attempts to identify and discuss
some of the issues that are currently considered to be important by our modern
civilization. All of our moral, ethical,
religious, personal views notwithstanding, the unquestioned trend in the world
has been from a more restricted to a less restricted society. This trend has been in place for quite some
time, with Europe leading the trend, but with the U.S. not too far behind (our
Puritan ethic is slower to erode than Europe’s post WW2 mentality).
One might argue that this trend is like
entropy, which goes from an ordered to a less ordered state. Some may say from order into chaos.
This
means less religion and decreased church attendance (can you identify?). It means that in the short term, abortion,
same sex marriage, legal marijuana and stem cell research will become common,
if not ubiquitous. It means that in the
longer term, issues like polygamy, human euthanasia, cloning of humans,
legalized gambling and prostitution, intelligent AI, will be seriously
considered, along with other human activities that are more epicurean and hedonistic
in nature. This sounds like the reverse
of Orwell’s “1984”. It is however, what
is happening in our world.
IMHO,
we can rail against these trends. We can
quote bible verses. We can form and join
spiritual, intellectual and activist groups against some of these trends, and
we might slow them down, but we will not stop these trends, no matter what we
do. In fact, in this modern, fast paced
world, we can expect these changes to happen more rapidly than more slowly.
Ray
Kurzweil, Michio Kaku and other futurists predict that the next phase in human
evolution will not be strictly biological.
It will be a combination of biology and technology. Human beings will in effect become cyborgs -,
a mix of man and machine. Is this
science fiction? Far out dreaming? So were predictions a few years ago that we
would carry access to all of the knowledge in the world in a small device we
could carry on our hip or in our purses.
(There is but a short leap to interfacing these devices directly with
our brains). So was the far out
prediction that satellites in orbit would be guiding our vehicles here on earth
by “talking” to a small device in our cars.
These sorts of changes are not linear with time. They are exponential. In fact they can be an exponent of exponential.
This story relates to the work on defining the human genome in the 1990’s
under the direction of Francis Collins. Seven
and a half years into the Human Genome Project, scientists announced they had
decoded only 1% of our genetic code. The project was budgeted for only 15
years. Skeptics said it wouldn’t work; it would take a century to complete.
Ray Kurzweil—inventor, philosopher, futurist—had a different reaction. He
said the genome was practically solved. And indeed the mapping was completed in
another seven years. The amount of data sequenced each year practically
doubled. This is exponential, rather
than linear progress.Ray Kurzweil has spoken for decades about this phenomenon and why he thinks it’s important for us to understand its implications for the future of humanity. We are hard wired to think linearly. This is our intuition about prediction. Whether predicting the speed and direction of a ball to make a catch, the time it will take for clothes to dry, or the number of years to save money for a project, or to pay off our mortgage, we assume a linear progression. That works well with many things in the Newtonian physical world.
But
information technology follows an exponential pace. Our assumption of linear
progression won’t work. And we do live in the Information Age, so we require a
different intuition to make meaningful predictions and sense of the world. When
things double every two years, as they do with Moore’s law (that states the
exponential growth of computing processing power), then we can’t assume that we
will be interacting with the world in the same way now as we will five years
from now. That means we have to make very dramatic extrapolations for the
future—things that seem crazy now will become the norm not so long from now.
Watching how in just the past 5 years our entire species has gone from walking
with hands by our sides to walking with both hands clutching a small
rectangular block of metal and glass is simply the most obvious example.
Kurzweil
goes from this point of accelerating growth to talking about artificial
intelligence and his prediction that by 2029 computers will outstrip human
intelligence, that by 2049 nanomachines will “assemble” food, controlling its
production at the molecular level, and that by 2099 all distinctions between
humans and machines will cease to exist. We will, for all intents and purposes,
become immortal. Is this far out? See above.
But now
let’s go back to the present. What do we
do about that disturbing list of issues facing us? We all have different opinions. I will record my research, thoughts and opinions
below. I consider myself a conservative
on most issues. However, I also am a
scientist, logician and pragmatist, so I do not slavishly follow strictly
conservative thinking. I do not believe
that the bible is inerrant and I believe that large parts of it are allegorical
or metaphorical. I believe that the
bible is a spiritual guide, not a record of history. I also do not unquestioningly follow
conservative pundits and politicians. I
read both conservative and liberal thinkers, and form my own conclusions. However if logic and science permit, I tend
toward conservatism, basically the belief that people are responsible for their
own actions with a minimum of outside interference.
The List of Issues
1.)
Finding Balanced News
Before embarking on this survey, it would be prudent
to examine the sources and political and ideological orientation of various
news sources around the world. This link
is a good start with respect to world magazines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_magazines.
The Pew Research Group is a balanced non partisan
organization that provides statistics on a wide variety of issues in the public
interest. http://www.pewresearch.org/about/.
Several other links explore the political/ideological
orientation of other news sources.
Most astute consumers of the news know that CNN, ABC,
CBS, NBC are slanted to the left and that MSNBC is decidedly left/liberal. They also know that Fox network is primarily
right/conservative. They also know that
the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times trend toward the
liberal/progressive, while the Wall Street Journal trends conservative.
All the above being the case, where do we get balanced
and unbiased news? I don’t think that
such is entirely possible, but after long experience, three sources come to
mind that are pretty reasonably balanced on most issues concerning the
U.S. These are The Telegraph newspaper out
of the U.K., the Thomson Reuters news agency, and the Pew Research group.
2.) Abortion
A pretty comprehensive overall study of abortion laws
and practices around the world has been done by the Pew Research Group. This link refers.
Science has defined that life begins in that one second that it takes egg and sperm to unite to form a zygote, a single cell that is the combination of egg and sperm. Life does not begin with syngamy, the first division of the zygote, or at some more recognizable form of an embryo. Life begins with fertilization, the formation of a zygote. A good scientific explanation of the beginning of life is given in this link. When Does Human Life Begin? - Bioethics Defense Fund
This being the case, any attempt to stop or curtail life’s further
development, through abortion or other means is killing life. Is it ever justified? Not in my opinion based on scientific
fact. The laws permit abortion. Scientifically, abortion means killing a
human being. This is not a right wing or
right to life position. It is a
scientific fact. The decision around
abortion is an ethical and moral dilemma for every person forced to make a
choice whether to let life develop, or kill it.
A difficulty in the debate around abortion is relating to life at a
molecular/zygote level. If you can’t see
it, how can it be life…? Etc. And the
rationalizations about the size of the embryo, which trimester, etc. all belie
the major issue here. Do you want to
kill it or let it continue to develop into a complete human being?
3.) Stem Cell and Fetal Research
But suppose embryos and fetal tissue exist because
someone has taken the legal route and aborted life. If the choice is discarding these tissues and
throwing them into the trash, versus using them for research, the scientist in
me would advocate using them for research.
Burying or cremating them with Christian rites would be salving to
believers if it were possible, but it normally it is not possible. Humanity is better served by the advances in
science resulting from embryonic/fetal research, if the alternative is
disposing of these in the trash. These
links refer.
4.) Medical Testing – Animals & Humans – The animal research proponents
claim they are saving humans babies, children and others by their research with
animals. The animal rights activists appeal to our humanitarian instincts by
showing photos of ostensibly tortured animals.
Clinical trials of drugs and other treatments with human subjects
abound. This is the Pew Research view. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-7-opinion-about-the-use-of-animals-in-research/
These links run the gamut of pros and cons and show
the law. https://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/http://animal-testing.procon.org/.
The animal rights activists have raised the awareness
around medical research with animals and as a result animals are treated more
humanely than in the past. Visions of vivisectionists in the 1930’s come to
mind. Some distinctions are made between
animals used for research in the Animal Welfare Act. http://www.neavs.org/research/laws. The USDA is the enforcing agency
around the AWA, but has limited resources.
Research with animals and human trials will continue in the interest of
medicine and science, hopefully in a humanitarian way, since such research is
largely self policing.
5.) Equal Rights of the Sexes
The bible is rife with verses that deny or disparage
the rights of women: Some examples:
Exodus 20:17, Exodus 21:7, Deuteronomy
22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:20-21, Numbers 31:17-18, Leviticus 15: 19-31,
Leviticus 12: 1-8, Numbers 30:1-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34, Colossians 3:18,
Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Timothy 2: 11-15, 1 Corinthians 11:2-10, Revelation
14:3-4.
This list is just a sampling of the
Bible verses that either instruct or illustrate proper relationships between
men and women. In context, they often are mixed among passages that teach
proper relationships with children, slaves and foreigners. Unfortunately, these bible passages had set
the tone for millennia concerning the rights and roles of women.
To this date there is no guarantee in the U.S. Constitution of equal
rights of the sexes, and according to the Huffington Post, activist women’s
groups have tried to get an equal rights amendment (ERA) passed since
1923. These links refer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tabby-biddle/wait-women-dont-have-equa_b_6098120.html.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment.
Women themselves, (factions within the feminist
movement), are responsible for this amendment not being passed. The Wikipedia article summarizes as follows:
“The Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA)
was a proposed amendment
to the United States Constitution
designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The
ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal
Eastman. In 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first
time. The ERA has always been highly controversial regarding the meaning of
equality for women. It was "feminist against feminist," says
historian Judith Sealander; the result was the eventual defeat of the ERA.
Middle-class women generally were supportive. Those speaking for the working
class were strongly opposed, arguing that employed women needed special
protections regarding working conditions and hours. In 1972, it passed both
houses of Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for
ratification. It seemed headed for quick approval until Phyllis
Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that
the ERA would disadvantage housewives and other women.
Congress had set a ratification deadline of March
22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications.
Five states later rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline. In
1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June
30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment and it died. Several
feminist organizations continue to work for the adoption of the ERA.”
This web site and its sub sites elaborate fully on
the background, history and current status of the ERA. http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/index.htm.
It is evident from a somewhat cursory perusal of the
dialog around the ERA that topics like women currently earning 80% of what men
make, the “glass ceiling”, and many other issues will not be adequately
addressed without further guarantees of equal rights (and responsibilities),
(and not special rights), for the sexes.
Sex discrimination cases are now adjudicated without a guiding amendment
in the constitution, other than the 14th amendment. Pro ERA activists believe that our U.S.
society remains somewhat misogynistic and it needs prodding into action on the
equality of the sexes. The subject has
become obfuscated by trying to bring abortion and gay rights into the
debate. The pro ERA group says that the
14th amendment guarantees equal rights (to males) when it comes to
race. Why not an amendment that specifically
guarantees equality as to sex?
The main reason that the ERA has failed thus far is
that Phyllis Schlafly and other staunch traditionalists became outspoken
opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment,
primarily during the 1970s as organizers of the "STOP ERA" campaign.
STOP is an acronym for "Stop Taking Our Privileges." Schlafly argued
that the ERA would take away gender specific privileges currently enjoyed by
women, including "dependent wife" benefits under Social Security and
the exemption from Selective Service
registration. Obviously this group feels
that the traditional role of women in the family and in society is more
important that having a definitive equal rights for the sexes amendment. The debate continues.
6.) The Vaccination Debate
One might ask what debate? The efficacy of vaccination was proven one
hundred years ago, and fear of the diseases addressed by vaccinations led to
widespread compliance wherever vaccines were available. What started the debate
and resistance to vaccination was almost anecdotal. The idea first made headlines in 1998,
when Andrew Wakefield, M.D., a British gastroenterologist, published a study of
12 children in The Lancet that linked the measles, mumps, and rubella
(MMR) combination vaccine with intestinal problems that he believed led to
autism. The following year, the AAP
issued a warning about thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative that was
found in most vaccines. Though it didn't mention autism specifically, it
suggested that the use of vaccines with thimerosal could theoretically push an
infant's total exposure of mercury, a neurotoxin, above safe limits, and it
recommended that the preservative be removed from shots. The vaccine-autism
hypothesis was solidly in the mainstream by the time actress Jenny McCarthy
went public with her belief that vaccines caused her son's autism, describing
in heartbreaking detail how "the soul left his eyes" on a 2007
segment of the The Oprah Show.
However, at least seven large studies in
major medical journals have now found no association between the MMR vaccine
and ASD -- and this February, The Lancet officially retracted Dr.
Wakefield's original paper. (Revelations that he had failed to disclose
connections to lawyers involved in vaccine litigation also emerged.) Some links:
http://www.parents.com/health/vaccines/controversy/vaccines-the-reality-behind-the-debate/ http://vaccines.procon.org/ http://www.ibtimes.com/vaccination-controversy-no-autism-mmr-vaccine-link-new-study-finds-1891420.
The situation with vaccinations
illustrates how an almost anecdotal study of 12 subjects can be blown out of
proportion by an uninformed media that appeals to emotions for profit, rather
than to logic and fact. Children and
others have died of easily preventable diseases because of fears spread in the
above fashion. There are reports of
measles in unvaccinated children and I just heard a TV commercial calling for
vaccination against whooping cough, something that I literally have not seen in
75 years. One also remembers Rachel
Carson and “Silent Spring” and the millions in Africa who died because DDT had
a negative effect on certain flora and fauna. (More later).
7.) Pesticides and Rachel Carson
Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring”
almost singly launched the environmental movement in the U.S. Some say it was
responsible for millions of deaths, particularly in Africa, because it resulted
in halting the use of DDT, which had virtually eradicated Malaria around the
world. The disease had a massive
resurgence after use of DDT stopped.
The following links refer: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/05/rachel_carson_and_the_deaths_o.html
www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
Obviously
Miss Carson, who died of cancer in 1964, is not a mass murderer by choice, but
the use of her graphic and anecdotal book fueled the banning of a substance
that was proven by the scientific community to be harmless to humans. This is somewhat simplistic, but essentially
true. http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html The fuel oil used to carry DDT was not
harmless, but the DDT itself was.
Millions died because of the hysteria around pesticides produced by “big
business”. http://www.panna.org/resources/ddt-story. This narrative is included here to again
illustrate how well intentioned but scientifically flawed arguments can sway
and affect large segments of our world.
Die hard environmentalists have mitigated the banning of DDT as a
beneficial action, and argue against the use of many pesticides in
agriculture. They consider Rachel Carson
as an iconic figure and have named buildings and streets after her. The following section on GMO’s elaborates
further.
8.)
GMO’s and Pesticides
There is a continuing debate about the use of GMO’s and
pesticides in our agriculture, and an anti GMO movement, which again is largely
anecdotal and without scientific foundation.
The Logical answer to these anti-GMO arguments is don’t use GMO’s if you
don’t want to, but please don’t prevent their proven benevolent use to feed an
increasingly hungry world. Some links:
Look for the science in these links and not the
anecdotal appeals to fear and bias.
9.)
Other Pseudo Science, Food Scares, etc.
Although science has postulated or proved otherwise,
public perceptions of issues are many times affected by other factors such as
information available in the media or on the internet. http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/
Various food scares pop up – non GMO, gluten free, red
meat is carcinogenic, etc. Some of these
are valid in some instances. For example,
gluten free works well for people with celiac disease. The point is that there is a tendency to
publicize and generalize these scares to the point that they take on a life of
their own without scientific backing.
Some of them become politicized rather than based in science or fact. This link is a detailed and incisive study of
food and health. http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/food-medicine/how-does-food-impact-health.
10.)
The Environment, Global Warming
One positive impact of the environmental movement is
that we humans have become more responsible on what we spew into our air and
water. This responsibility is obviously
a good thing, and even countries like China, India and Russia are become better
citizens of the world concerning the environment by adopting some modicum of
environmental controls. Our atmosphere,
rivers, lakes and oceans have become cleaner in the last 30 years. Again, this is somewhat anecdotal, but the
trend toward fewer pollutants has to be positive.
Unfortunately the environmental movement has gone way
overboard on global warming and has instilled fear in concerned scientists that
have developed data and conclusions that counter the loudly proclaimed
contention that global warming is caused primarily by human generated emissions
into the atmosphere. A figure bandied about by pundits and politicians,
including Obama and Kerry in the U.S., is that 97% of the world’s scientists
agree that global warming caused my human emission into the atmosphere is a
mounting threat. This assertion has been
proven to be patently false. These links
support the “de-mythifying” of the 97% claim.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ The following link presents what
seems to be a balanced pro and con commentary of the global warming phenomenon.
A
review of the data and conclusions of both the proponents and detractors of
global warming (seemingly about equally in number, not 97% in either
direction), is not definitive. The
studies are either incomplete, too anecdotal ,or political in nature, or the
results and conclusions get lost in the scale and mass of the data. These Pew Research studies add some
significance.
The
following link is to an in depth and comprehensive statistical analysis of the
earth’s natural heating and cooling cycles and the effect of human activity on
these cycles. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle. It appears to be a valid scientific attempt
to examine and isolate the variables affecting the earth’s temperature
cycles. The scales used visually skew
the results but do not markedly detract from the conclusion, that there is a
measurable effect on the earth’s normal temperature cycles due to human
activities since 1750. This measureable
effect is on the order of a few tenths of a centigrade degree and almost gets
lost in the scales used in the analyses.
The
Open source Foundation, which has no political agenda reports as follows: “The
data clearly indicates global warming is happening and is human caused. At this
time in the natural cycle Earth should be slightly cooling on trend, leading
into what would have been the next ice age. Instead Earth is warming. There is
no valid evidence that can prove otherwise. False representations or facts out
of context are not a proof of any kind, they are merely incorrect.” http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths.
It
comes to mind that the above study does not distinguish industrial activities
from those resulting from the massive increase in human and animal populations
since 1750, nor does it identify the effect of deforestation on global warming. Human beings have increased from 790 million
to roughly 10 times that to nearly 8 Billion during this time. http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history1.aspx. Estimates of animals that also breathe in
oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide and produce methane through flatulence are
estimated currently as 20 quintillion (20 billion billion). http://animals.mom.me/number-animals-earth-3994.html. If animals (farm animals, etc, have also
increased by a factor of 10 since 1750 similar to humans, there should be a
measureable effect on global temperatures by more humans and animals just being
here on earth and breathing in and out with no burning of fossil fuels.
Quoting from the above link, “Forests are vital for
life, home to millions of species, they protect soil from erosion, produce
oxygen, store carbon dioxide, and help control climate. Forests are also vital
for us to live as they provide us with food, shelter and medicines as well as
many other useful things. They also purify the air we breathe and water that we
need to survive. Deforestation by humans is causing all of these necessary
functions to be lessened, and hence damaging the atmosphere even further.
Forests play a huge role in the carbon cycle on our
planet. When forests are cut down, not only does carbon absorption cease, but
also the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere as CO2 if
the wood is burned or even if it is left to rot after the deforestation
process.
Smaller crops e.g. plants and agricultural crops
also draw in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, however forests store up to 100
times more carbon than agricultural fields of the same area.
Deforestation is an important factor in global
climate change. Climate change is because of a build up of carbon dioxide in
out atmosphere and if we carry on cutting down the main tool we have to
diminish this CO2 build up, we can expect the climate of our planet to change
dramatically over the next decades.
It is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of
carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the
cutting and burning of forests, every year.
Over 30 million acres of forests and woodlands are
lost every year due to deforestation; causing a massive loss of income to poor
people living in remote areas who depend on the forest to survive”.
To
summarize, human activities have indeed contributed to measurable deviation in
the normal temperature cycles of planet earth.
The extent and impact of this deviation has been exaggerated by
alarmists pushing their own political agendas.
Efforts to reduce emissions and reduce our carbon footprint cannot fail
to have an overall beneficial effect on our environment. These efforts should be pragmatic and based
on science rather than on anecdotal or emotional or politically driven appeals.
11.)
Cloning Humans and Animals
Since Dolly the sheep was cloned
in 1996, there has been voluminous research in this field, and many species of
mammals have been successfully cloned. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/reproduced-future-of-cloning/
Human cloning is currently illegal
in virtually all parts of the world, but that doesn't mean it will stay that
way. Back in 2005, the United Nations
General Assembly adopted a Declaration
on Human Cloning prohibiting all forms of human cloning
"inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection
of human life." The ruling prohibits both therapeutic cloning, in which
cells are cloned from a human for use in medicine and transplants, and
reproductive cloning, the practice of creating a living, breathing genetic
duplicate. Though many countries disagreed with the declaration, the resulting
moratorium is respected around the globe.
To date, no human clone has ever been born. But
back in 2008, researchers successfully created the first five mature human
embryos using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) where the nucleus of a
somatic cell was taken from a donor and transplanted into a vacant host egg
cell. The embryos were only allowed to develop to the blastocyst stage, at
which point they were studied and then destroyed.
Is producing
a clone similar to the beginning of life?
No, according to the above Westchester definition. “Does generation
of a cloned human embryo or live human baby by SCNT compromise the definition
of when a life begins? No. Upon transfer of a somatic nucleus to an empty egg
cell, a new cell is generated that has a material composition and a
developmental trajectory different from those of either of the two cells that
produced it.”
I believe that human cloning is just a matter of time
and of the proper research. That clone
will be a baby that cries craps and acts like a normal baby. How can it not be human? With the advent of human cloning we will need
to change our moral and ethical views on how to treat cloned human beings. I feel that they should be given full human
rights like normally conceived or “test tube babies” or any other humans,
cyborgs, etc.
12.)
Death Penalty
One can make the same moral and ethical argument here
as in the abortion debate. Is it ever
justified to deliberately take a human life?
I have debated on both side of this issue. The efficacy of capital
punishment is contingent on whether it serves as a preventative and results in
a decrease of murder and violent crime.
If it does indeed serve as a preventative, a case can be made for the
use of the death penalty based on lives saved.
The taking of one life potentially saves other lives. This study shows that the death penalty
deters murders. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-penalty-deters-murders-studies-say/.
Unfortunately, as in the case of many controversial societal
issues, there are as many studies with findings against the death penalty as
there are with findings that support it.
The issue has become politicized and unfortunately, data in bent to fit
political views.
If, as some of the data shows, there is no clear
preventative result from the death penalty, then the alternative of life
imprisonment with no chance of parole seems appropriate for the most egregious
killers. The following links pertain:
The trend and thinking in our western society is clearly
against the death penalty, so many studies reflect this view.
13.)
Euthanasia
(Doctor Assisted Suicide)
The ethical and moral issues are similar to the
above. Is taking a human life ever
justified? The trend is toward helping terminally
ill and suffering people end their lives.
Laws in most states currently prevent the practice, but the societal
trend exists. It’s difficult to say that
a doctor should not assist in ending a life if a person is in abject pain and
there is no hope of recovery. Opponents point out that with modern palliative
care, pain can be avoided entirely.
The Netherlands and Belgium permit end of life
intervention. Oregon has such a law and the
California legislature just passed a similar bill which is awaiting signature
by Governor Jerry Brown. Experience in Belgium
and The Netherlands shows that the reasons for end of life intervention has
widened. Patients with depression and
other non-terminal illnesses are requesting euthanasia because it is available.
These links refer:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199804233381706
14.)
Same Sex
Marriage
Homosexuality has been a human condition since the
beginning of time, with acceptance of homosexuals varying with the social,
political and religious flavor of the times.
This link refers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality. Western Christianity has
traditionally been homophobic, and this stems primarily from the bible passages
that denounce homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB), 1 Kings 22:46,
etc.
On the physical side, if one acknowledges that the greater part of
heterosexual sex activity has nothing to do with procreation, and heterosexual
sex can and does use any and all parts of the body for pleasure, it follows logically
that homosexual sex is as physically natural and acceptable as heterosexual
sex. On the emotional side, if two
people of the same sex have an emotional attraction, love each other and are
loyal to one another, this relationship seems to be as logically valid as the
love between a man and a woman. Gender
should not matter. The issues are obfuscated in several ways – 1.) The
emotional homophobia stemming from our past, as above; 2.) The stridency of gay
rights activists who demand not only recognition and equality, but also special
privileges for gays; 3.) The politicization of gay rights issues and resulting
heated dialogs that replace logic with anecdotal commentary.
This is a pretty comprehensive review by the Pew Research group on the
topic. http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gay-marriage-and-homosexuality/
Insofar as same sex marriage is concerned, various countries and states
have now decreed that same sex civil marriages or unions are increasingly
legal. These civil marriages legally
define the partnership of a same sex couple.
Whether same sex marriages should be formalized in a church setting
continues to be debated. It would seem
that churches should rely on their own traditions, homophobia notwithstanding,
rather than echo civil law. We do, after
all, have (or had) separation of church and state. It would be a far reach to see the Catholic
Church, which considers marriage a sacrament, sanctify a same sex union.
I’m a product of the 1940’s and 50’s, raised a Catholic, and currently a
Methodist. I carry the homophobia I
referenced above almost as part of my heritage.
Sexual relations with another man are anathema to me. However I am a scientist and a logician. I cannot logically condemn same sex civil
marriages. I believe that religious
institutions should make their own decisions.
I normally do not agree with many of Alan Dershowitz’ positions, but I
do agree with his following commentary on same sex marriage.
“The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage -- as
distinguished from the secular institution of civil union -- from the state.
Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by
the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.
Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or
other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These
religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which
marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages.
Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a
non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious
institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be
entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.
Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as
ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular
consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.”
“In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as
heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to
persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the
concern of the secular state.
Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose
gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of
separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in
the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state
control.”
15.)
Polygamy
Well, if same sex civil unions are OK, why not
polygamy? Why not ménages-a-trois or
a-quatre? The only thing that should be
logically assured in modern times is that women have the same rights to
multiple partners as men. Would this be
palatable in this misogynistic world?
Enough said. I don’t see any
great groundswell in society to legalize polygamy, so don’t ask, don’t tell.
16.)
Gun Violence and Gun Control
As is the case with other controversial national
issues our laws concerning firearms are all over the lot. These laws vary from easily obtainable guns
and relatively easily obtainable concealed carry permits in many southern tier
states to repressive and confiscatory laws in some our more populous northern
cities and states. Laws notwithstanding,
mass shootings, covered as spectacles by our news media have become ubiquitous
in the public purview.
I received a BB gun at age eight and .22 rifle at age eleven. I own about twenty handguns and rifles that I
keep locked in a safe. I am a member of the NRA and I have competed in high
power rifle championships in Camp Perry, Ohio in the 1980’s and 90’s, and rifle
and pistol matches in many other locations. I am not a hunter of animals, but
in many ways, I am the quintessential legal gun owner, so my views should be
evident. Why should I be penalized with restrictive gun control laws because a
criminal illegally obtains a firearm and commits a crime? A gun is a tool, like a knife or a saw. Should tools and cars be banned because a criminal
or mentally disturbed person uses one to commit a crime or kill someone? Arguments
like these abound. A chap in Sweden just
recently attacked a school and killed two people with a sword. Fifty people were recently killed in China in
a knife attack. Should we start thinking
about banning sharp edged tools? Absurd!
Every time a nut or criminal goes on a rampage and kills people the anti
gunners clamor for legislation against guns, as if the guns were doing the
killing. Well, if guns were more
difficult to obtain and there were fewer of them, there would be less crime and
fewer mass killings. Nonsense! These incidents are sad, and unfortunately
are milked for every ounce of emotional content by the anti gun folks.
Firearms in the hands of the public is a fundamental right and was
intended by our founders to be a counter to only the government having
arms. The second amendment was placed
there for a reason and has been upheld many times, the latest by the Supreme
Court in 2008. We don’t need to belabor
the fact that history is rife with examples where an unarmed population was
exploited, or worse, by their government.
Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union are enough.
Americans have always legally owned firearms. Our traditions are steeped in their use, from
the Revolution to the Wild West, to guys like me shooting at paper. So are we irresponsible, wild-assed cowboys
shooting ourselves up? A mass shooting
in the U.S. every other week recently seems to point in that direction. The mass shootings are tragic. Typically an
armed individual with a disturbed mind walks into an unarmed crowd and kills
and wounds multiple people. It becomes a
national event, and the anti-gunners howl.
One question quickly comes to mind.
What if someone in the crowd was armed and not afraid to use their
weapon to protect themselves and others?
Fewer people would die. Of course
we can’t have everyone in the country walking around with a piece on their hip,
and we can’t afford to have every gathering, like churches, guarded. However, statistics show that on a per capita
basis, cities with less restrictive firearms laws have fewer gun fatalities
than cities with very restrictive gun laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_%282012%29
Also, on a per capita basis, the U.S. is well within the pack of western
countries when it comes to rampage killings.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/.
Obviously Norway’s data is skewed by Anders Breivik’s killing of 77
people in 2011, but it’s clear that there are more rampage killings on a per
capita basis in countries with more restrictive firearms laws than in the U.S.
with less restrictive firearms laws. Other
links from Pew Research: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/17/mass-shootings-rivet-national-attention-but-are-a-small-share-of-gun-violence/. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rates-support-for-gun-rights-increases/. http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/pages/2/
The U.S. simply has too many guns!
There are somewhere between 270 to 310 million firearms in the U.S. Passing anti gun laws which make it more
restrictive to purchase a gun simply will not cut it. Registration?
Will criminals and the mentally ill register their weapons? Restricted portability – same arguments. Buyback and confiscation? – Simply too many
guns. Anti gunners point to Australia’s
buyback program which seemed to be successful.
Firstly, Australia’s constitution already catered for confiscatory
buybacks at a reasonable price. They
just tweaked existing legislation.
Secondly, The Aussies confiscated 660,000 firearms out of a population
of 23 million. The U.S. has 310 million
firearms in a population of about 320 million. There are simply too many guns.
Recent statistics from Australia, several years after the massive
confiscation of guns shows an increase in murders and other crimes in the
country. This seems to support the NRA
position that crimes against unarmed civilians are easier than crimes against
an armed public. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847.
This Snopes article belies some of the statistics and conclusions about
the increase in crime in Australia. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp.
Another major point which is sometime
forgotten. States looking to save money
have pared away both the community mental health services designed to keep
people healthy, as well as the hospital care needed to help them heal after a
crisis. “We have replaced the hospital bed with the jail cell, the homeless
shelter and the coffin”. States have
been reducing hospital beds for decades, because of insurance pressures as well
as a desire to provide more care outside institutions. A larger number of mentally ill on the
streets and illegal guns available on the streets is a devastatingly dangerous
mix.
So can we do anything? The link below is a well considered article that
addresses the issue.
http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx.
A brief summary:
Prevention efforts guided by research on
developmental risk can reduce the likelihood that firearms will be introduced
into community and family conflicts or criminal activity. Prevention
efforts can also reduce the relatively rare occasions when severe mental
illness contributes to homicide or the more common circumstances when
depression or other mental illness contributes to suicide.
The skills and knowledge of psychologists are
needed to develop and evaluate programs and settings in schools, workplaces,
prisons, neighborhoods, clinics, and other relevant contexts that aim to change
gendered expectations for males that emphasize self-sufficiency, toughness, and
violence, including gun violence.
Although it is important to recognize that
most people suffering from a mental illness are not dangerous, for those
persons at risk for violence due to mental illness, suicidal thoughts, or
feelings of desperation, mental health treatment can often prevent gun
violence.
Prevention of violence occurs along a
continuum that begins in early childhood with programs to help parents raise
emotionally healthy children and ends with efforts to identify and intervene
with troubled individuals who are threatening violence.
Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups —
domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes,
and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat
to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence.
Two other older studies which seem reasonably
balanced on the issues, and which present a lot of statistical information are
given in the following links.
A pro gun article is referenced below to provide some balance.
We need better mental health, which is no surprise. We need education and training around
firearms. We need to stress safety and
security of the firearms we own. We need to ensure that firearms do not fall
into the hands of the mentally ill, depressed or ant-social. These seem to be platitudes, but we absolutely
need to take positive actions. IMHO these do not include penalizing legal gun
owners for the actions of criminals and the mentally unbalanced.
17.)
Immigration Issues
Let’s get the numbers right. Who are the
immigrants in the United States illegally? Where do they come from? In which
states do they settle? What jobs do they hold?
As of 2012, the population of immigrants in the United States illegally is estimated to be approximately 11.4 million, roughly 3.7% of the entire US population. 6.7 million or 59% of the immigrants in the country illegally are from Mexico, 23% are from other Latin American countries, 11% are from Asia, 4% are from Europe & Canada, and 3% are from African & and other countries. 25% of all immigrants in the country illegally reside in California. In 2008, approximately 31% of workers in the roofing industry and 27% of maids/housekeepers were immigrants living in the country illegally.
As of 2012, the population of immigrants in the United States illegally is estimated to be approximately 11.4 million, roughly 3.7% of the entire US population. 6.7 million or 59% of the immigrants in the country illegally are from Mexico, 23% are from other Latin American countries, 11% are from Asia, 4% are from Europe & Canada, and 3% are from African & and other countries. 25% of all immigrants in the country illegally reside in California. In 2008, approximately 31% of workers in the roofing industry and 27% of maids/housekeepers were immigrants living in the country illegally.
How did we get into a situation where we have 11-12 million people in
our country illegally? The quick answer
is because our borders are porous and our immigration laws are not properly
enforced. Because of our freedoms and
economic potential, the U.S. has always attracted immigrants and there has
always been a procedure to get here and stay here legally. Not always fair, but at least it was defined
and enforced/ This apparently broke down
about 30 or so years ago through lack of resolve on the part of the U.S.
government to apply immigration law and keep our borders secure. We are now faced with a fait-accompli, upwards
of 12 million people here illegally.
This link refers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
All of us non-native Americans immigrated here or came from
immigrants. The Ellis Island immigration
records show that my grandfather emigrated from Austria (really Galicia in Poland)
in 1906 as a “non immigrant alien”.
Presumably he had a visa that allowed him to live and work in the
U.S. He was one of many in that corner
of Massachusetts with a similar alien status.
I do not know what the legal requirements for them were or whether they
fulfilled them. I know that my
grandfather bought land and farmed it, so he must have had appropriate legal
status in Massachusetts. The following
link provides voluminous information on the history of U.S. immigration.
So does this link to Pew Research. http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/immigration/pages/2/
In 2006 George W. Bush (Bush 43) proposed an immigration policy that seemed
to make sense to address this current immigration issue. In part:
"It is neither wise, nor
realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United
States, and send them across the border," he said. He also called for giving some of the
long-time undocumented a path to U.S. citizenship, saying, "I believe that
illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have
to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn
English, and to work in a job for a number of years." President Bush felt people who met those
conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, "but approval would
not be automatic," and he said they'd have to "wait in line behind
those who played by the rules and followed the law."
This proposal got ground up in the grist mill of
Washington politics. Since then, we’ve
built walls, had raids, and on and on.
Nothing has been resolved. The
dialog has ranged all the way from calls for integration and special privileges
for undocumented aliens to roundups and exfiltration by force.
Logically, the illegal aliens are here illegally. Whether the laws were lax or not, they broke
our laws to get here and stay here.
There are nearly 12 million people here illegally, certainly too many to
deport, not to mention the economic impact this would have or our own
economy. Bush’s proposal seemed
reasonable and logical, perhaps with some variation. Make it voluntary. Assess a small fine for breaking our
laws. $500 or $1000 should suffice, and
apply some of this to providing ESL and immigration classes. Much more than this might be prohibitive to
someone making minimum wage and prevent their participation. Still it needs to be a real monetary penalty
similar to a traffic ticket and not handled as a criminal offense. Issue green cards or temporary residency
cards allowing the individual to stay and work in the country pending their
application for citizenship. Impose a
five year waiting period for citizenship, and ensure that legal immigrants are
addressed and admitted first. Close our
borders to illegal entry using whatever means are necessary. The availability of drones and sophisticated
surveillance techniques should aid in this process in addition to conventional
means like added staff, barriers (and not Soviet style walls), etc. Catch and diligently prosecute the coyotes
that prey on poor Mexicans to provide entry into the U.S. Again, some of these suggestions seem like
platitudes. However what is required is the political, societal and enforcement
fortitude to accomplish the reforms necessary to make this work. In ten years we should have addressed at
least 70-80% of the illegals in the country.
We need to do something! We
cannot continue to politicize and debate this issue ad infinitum with no
definitive results.
18.)
English as Official Language
The U.S. has no official national language. There have been efforts to make American
English the national language, but have failed to gain traction. Spanish speakers now comprises over 12% of
our population, but many of them also speak English. French, German, Polish, Italian, Mandarin,
Vietnamese, and other languages are also spoken. This link pertains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States#States_that_are_de_facto_bilingual.
Having said that, we Americans are somewhat insular
about our English. An educated European
will typically speak at least four languages well, and have some knowledge of
several others. These would include language
of the country, English, German and French.
Russian, Spanish and Italian are also common. This is because multi language education
starts in elementary school for many Europeans and continues into high school
and college. It is thought that many
Americans would benefit from such an approach.
19.)
Bigotry, Tribalism, Racial Issues
From the beginnings of early civilization, we humans
agglomerated into groups with common causes, backgrounds, identifying
characteristics and thought processes.
Hunters formed groups to more efficiently bring down large animals as a source
of food and other needed artifacts. Gatherers formed groups to make the processing
of food and other items necessary for survival more efficient. These early groups formed into tribes, and
the tribes into larger alliances.
Totems, signs, flags banners, sounds all identified early (and current)
groups and fostered a spirit of identity and allegiance. Eventually city states, nations and empires
evolved from these rudimentary groups. The concept of “us” and “them” evolved
naturally. “We” tolerated and traded
with “them” when not fighting “them”. We
hated “them” and killed “them” when at war.
One truth was always constant “we”, and our habits and styles were
always superior to “them” and theirs.
Thus, prejudice, bigotry and animosity toward others different from us, seems
to be the legacy of civilizations and empires.
It is inherent in our competitive natures. It pervades our leisure time sports and other
activities. Rooting for the Red Sox or
Manchester United and hating The Yankees or Arsenal is a displaced outlet for
more serious prejudices. What Pew
Research has found: http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/discrimination-and-prejudice/
Most of the modern world legally eschews bigotry and overt prejudicial
distinctions, at least within national bounds or major alliances and “on the
books”, espouses human rights. This does
not entirely remove the natural human penchant for insularity, tribalism,
prejudice and bigotry. Ask nearly any
average man in the street over a beer what he thinks of “them”, whoever “them”
may be. Likely as not you’ll get an
earful, including slurs and derogatory epithets about “them”. Equality and human rights and other
progressive thoughts notwithstanding, there is still an undercurrent of
prejudice and bigotry in our human psyche.
If there weren’t we would have stopped waging wars long ago, and would
be truly “loving thy neighbor”.
Unfortunately this trend toward tribalism has not disappeared with the
modern age. One example is Kenya, which
seemed to have incorporated the political system left by Britain and overcome
its violent tribal past, but who have now once again reverted to tribal
conflict. Another example closer to home
is the racial tensions between white Americans and persons of color in the U.S.,
which have resulted in riots, deaths and destruction of property recently in
several locations.
Is there an answer? Jesus had one
“love thy neighbor as thyself”.
Confucius had one too - “do unto others as you would have them do unto
you”. All of our great spiritual leaders
have shown us the way. The directions
have been there from time immemorial. We
humans just don’t follow them.
20.)
Legalizing Marijuana and Other Drugs
Ever since humans first realized that drinking crushed
grapes and other fermented material changed one’s mood and made them feel good,
they have discovered and developed all manner of substances for that
purpose. It is interesting to see how
mood altering drugs were treated in the past.
Particularly interesting is the use of opium in China
and the Far East, and how Great Britain used opium to expand its empire. These links pertain, and contain a lot of
historical information.
It is also noteworthy that efforts to control the
consumption of alcohol and narcotic drugs in the U.S. only date roughly from
the beginning of the twentieth century.
Prior to that consumption of these substances was left to the good
conscience of the population, and to the churches and other moral guiding
bodies as a moderating force. Would that
this situation still obtain today.
Unfortunately, extensive abuse by the public has resulted in defining
and curtailing the use of mind altering substances by law. Part of this stems from the irresponsible
behavior of human beings, and part from a “big brother” government knowing
what’s better for us, and passing laws to that effect.
Concerning marijuana, the trend across the western
world is to make marijuana legal, somewhat returning to the status quo. It has been made legal in several U.S. states
for medical use, and decriminalized in numerous other states. It is also legal for recreational use in
Colorado and Washington. It has been decriminalized in most countries of the
world. It remains illegal in U.S.
Federal law, creating conflicts in states where use is permitted or
tolerated. There are medically
acknowledged benefits of marijuana and marijuana use has persisted whether or
not it happened to be legal at any given time and place. One harks back to prohibition of alcohol in
the U.S. by constitutional amendment in 1920 and its repeal by another
constitutional amendment in 1933. The
point is that people will continue to use substances in spite of what the then
current law says. One would think that
from the lesson learned about alcohol in prohibition, we would have long ago
legalized marijuana and taxed it like we do alcohol. According to the medical profession, alcohol and
tobacco use and abuse is much more destructive to human beings than use of
marijuana.
Marijuana is pictured as an entry drug in more
dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin.
It would seem so is alcohol, yet we consume vast quantities of it. Again no matter what we think and what
arguments we throw up, the public will continue to use marijuana and will
eventually legalize it. But what about
other more potent and addicting drugs?
It seems that the public is not responsible enough to be able to use
these drugs on their own and needs government passed and regulated laws to
protect them. That is a sad pass. Alcohol is as debilitating a drug as any of
the others, but it continues to be legal and heavily used.
21.)
Prostitution, Gambling, Other Vices
Prostitution and gambling have existed from the beginnings of
civilization in spite of laws and rules against these vices.
Prostitution is legal in 77 countries of the
world. This charts summarizes.
·
Number of
countries prostitution is Illegal: 109
·
Number of
countries prostitution is restricted: 11
·
Number of
countries prostitution is Legal: 77
·
Number of
countries with No laws for prostitution: 5
Cleromancy or casting of lots is mentioned 70 times in the Old
Testament and seven times in the New Testament. Gambling or chance was used to make major
decisions from time immemorial..
Gambling in modern times is readily available in virtually all parts of
world, particularly with the advent of on line gambling, Also there literally
thousands of physical gambling casinos throughout the world.
So the question is almost moot.
Both prostitution and gambling are readily available nearly everywhere, religious
guidance, morals and warnings notwithstanding.
Churches and moral institutions notwithstanding, curtailing these
activities is virtually impossible. The societal
trend is toward legalizing these vices, managing them and taxing them, rather
than leaving them to the criminals. This
article pertains.
22.)
Technology
As discussed in the introduction technology is
advancing at an exponential pace, and even at an exponent of exponential. Is this a good thing? Are we moving too fast? Luddites clamor for “the good old days” and
say we are too glued to our smart phones, computers and other media
devices. They disparage the technology
as detracting from human interaction.
Whilst there is some attraction to a simpler life, we should remember
that it was also a more difficult and arduous life. Life expectancy 100 years ago was about 50
years for men and slightly higher for women.
It is now about 76 for men and 81 for women. Infant mortality rates, (under one year),
have dropped from approximately 100 per thousand to 6 per thousand over the
last 100 years.
Our lives have improved in countless ways. As I write this on a computer based word
processor, the spell checker corrects me as I type away. Not too many years ago, I would be typing on
a piece of paper, would have to check my own spelling, and would need to erase
and correct. Not too many years prior to
that, I would be manually writing this in cursive and carefully and manually
manipulating it. Such is the case in so
many areas that it is impossible to mention them all. See the introduction for a brief discussion
of smart phones and GPS.
See
also: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
Ray Kurzweil and others have predicted that a singularity will occur
shortly (Kurzweil predicts 2029), where all machine intelligence in the world
will equal all human intelligence.
Someone asked in a meeting on Science and Religion, “Well if this
intelligence becomes sentient, where will it get its values”. I could not help responding that since this
intelligence will have access to all of our human history and activities; it
cannot fail to conclude that humanity is a virus and take steps to eliminate
us. The “Terminator” and “Matrix” series
come to mind. The following Pew Research
study and addenda also refer.
There is a mounting fear amongst the world’s thinkers that “intelligent”
artificial intelligence is a real possibility in the future, and also a real
threat. We cannot (yet) imbue emotions
or “souls” into AI, and based on pure logic, we cannot be certain what
intelligent, self reproducing and self enhancing machines will do. This is not just fictional speculation. It is fast becoming vividly real.
23.)
“Decrease” in Religious Worship
We have all heard anecdotal comments like “Religious
affiliation is decreasing around the world”, or “Muslims are increasing in
Europe”.
The following are from Pew Research which as described
in the introduction, is balanced and non partisan research group. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/15/europe-projected-to-retain-its-christian-majority-but-religious-minorities-will-grow/
Quoting: “The
religious profile of the world is rapidly changing, driven primarily by
differences in fertility rates and the size of youth populations among the
world’s major religions, as well as by people switching faiths. Over the next
four decades, Christians will remain the largest religious group, but Islam
will grow faster than any other major religion. If current trends continue, by
2050 …
·
The number
of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world.
·
Atheists,
agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though
increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a
declining share of the world’s total population.
·
The global
Buddhist population will be about the same size it was in 2010, while the Hindu
and Jewish populations will be larger than they are today.
·
In Europe,
Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.
·
India will
retain a Hindu majority but also will have the largest Muslim population of any
country in the world, surpassing Indonesia.
·
In the
United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the
population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the
largest non-Christian religion. Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than
people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.
·
Four out of
every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa.
These are among the global religious trends highlighted in new
demographic projections by the Pew Research Center. The projections take into
account the current size and geographic distribution of the world’s major
religions, age differences, fertility and mortality rates, international
migration and patterns in conversion”.
So, based on a comprehensive study by the Pew Research Group, overall
religious affiliation is not decreasing around the world. The primary decrease is in Christianity, and
primarily in Europe and the U.S. Some of
this can be explained by the higher birth rates of Muslims compared to
Christians. But this is not the full
answer. I believe that Christian numbers
are decreasing because of a movement or drift away from Christian worship to more
secular and more hedonistic pursuits.
For example, the Dallas Cowboys or Real Madrid are playing, and that
takes precedence over church attendance; or “I’m time constrained in this fast
paced world. Sunday allows me to catch
up or rest”. There are numbers of excuses
that place the worship of God in a secondary role.
An even more pertinent phenomenon is the fact that many educated younger
people in the Christian West are in favor of the loosening of societal issues
of the times that we are discussing in this paper, in opposition to the views
of traditional churches that are generally more conservative on these issues.
The various denominations of Christianity are actively addressing this
issue, as are individual churches.
Proselytizing and evangelizing is simply not reaching the intended
audience. No solutions to this
phenomenon are obvious, other than to continue to proselytize and evangelize
and hope to stem the flow.
This link comments on the decrease in Christian religious affiliation in
the U.S. It is mostly commentary, but is
does present some rudimentary data. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/12/christianity-faces-sharp-decline-as-americans-are-becoming-even-less-affiliated-with-religion/
24.)
Middle East Refugees & the
“Islamization” of Western Countries
This topic became of great interest as the war on
terror identified Muslim radicals as being one of the major causes of terrorism
in the world. It has become even more
relevant as literally millions of Muslims pour into Europe to escape the
fighting in the Middle East and other parts of the world.
Even before this latest influx of Muslims into Europe,
several writers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, (“infidel”, “Heretic”), Geert Wilders
(“Marked for Death”), Bruce Bawer (“While Europe Slept”), have warned that many
Muslims are not normal immigrants who assimilate into their adopted
countries. They keep apart, educate
their children in Wahabist schools and espouse Sharia law, rather than civil
law in their adoptive countries. Ali
posits in her “Heretic” that Islam has never undergone a cleansing reformation
like Christianity did in the fourteenth century, and still reverts to seventh
century theological and societal principles for all. Join the faith, pay jizya (poll-tax), or
be put to death. Wilders is a Dutch parliamentarian,
author and speaker on this topic. Bawer
is an American author living in Norway.
All three of the above authors have “fatwas” or contracts on their lives
issued by Islamic fundamentalist radicals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
Whilst Christian adherents are
decreasing in general around the world, Islam is increasing.
The already high birth rates amongst
Muslims is being exacerbated by the influx of millions of additional Muslim
escaping from Middle Eastern upheavals and entering Europe, and has led to increased
strife and anti Muslim protests in Europe.
The EU is in a quandary as how to handle this tremendous migration of
humanity and how to assimilate even more Muslims into Europe. The U.S. has been virtually dormant in this
respect, as in many other areas of foreign policy. Some numbers facts & figures are as
follows.
Sept
21, 2015 Fortune
To date, the United States has given about $4
billion for relief efforts, but has only taken in 1,500 Syrian refugees, and
granted temporary protected status to about 2,600 already in the country. On
Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the Obama administration
will increase the annual limit of refugees that America accepts from around the
world over the next two years: In 2016, the current quota of 70,000 will be
increased to 85,000, and in 2017, it will increase further to 100,000.
Sept 3. 2015 NYT
A Surge in Asylum Applications
Germany has received more applicants than any other European Union
nation, with more than 154,000 migrants seeking asylum from January to June, up
from 68,000 in the same period last year. When adjusted for population, Hungary
and Sweden are among the top recipients.
Applicants Since 2011
Germany 547,034
France 255,800
Sweden 228,601
Turkey 209,019
Italy 155,536
Hungary 129,203
United Kingdom 125,139
Austria 104,489
Switzerland 98,102
Belgium 79,209
Serbia and Kosovo 65,237
Netherlands 63,889
Norway 47,240
Greece 42,800
Poland 38,418
Denmark 35,302
Bulgaria 27,124
Spain 21,112
Finland 14,361
Montenegro 9,158
Total ~ 2,295,000
Sources: United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, World Bank
This study by the BBC presents a graphical view of the
crisis.
It is noteworthy that little
Lebanon, with a normal population of about 4 million people has absorbed over 1
million counted UN refugees and another half million not on the books. Many of these refugees have been helped by
Lebanese civilians in their homes. Turkey
has absorbed over 2 million. This graphic from the above link is quite
instructive.
25.)
Radical Fundamentalism
Perhaps the one most dangerous and corrosive movements
of our modern world is the resurgence of radical religious fundamentalism. This not just ISIS or ISIL or other forms of
radical Islam, although this is currently the most easily identified. Unbalanced
fundamentalism pervades nearly all of our major religions. A definition of a radical fundamentalist: “Someone so
confident in their own beliefs that they are unwilling to think reasonably and
consider other perspectives. Usually in the form of some religious teaching
that benefits them and their group”.
What is Isil? An Islamic extremist group controlling
territory in Syria and Iraq
What are its aims? A worldwide Islamic caliphate - a religious
government - without borders
How is the group funded? Looting, extortion and the possession of
oilfields providing £1.8m in revenue per day
How much territory does Isil
control? An area of the Middle East
that is roughly the size of Belgium
Where is it based? Isil's HQ is understood to be in the city
of Raqqa, Syria
Obviously ISIS, who have established, or are
establishing, a Islamic caliphate across large swaths of the Middle East, are a
threat to the whole world because of their virulent views and violent actions,
and their avowed goal of imposing universal Islamic Shania law. One can pontificate on how such a cancerous
and anti-civilization group was allowed to develop, but this is pointless. ISIS needs to be stopped, and hopefully will
be stopped if sufficient resolve can be generated by the world’s major powers. http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/islamic-extremism#
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119259/isis-history-islamic-states-new-caliphate-syria-and-iraq
Radical Christian fundamentalism that harbors such organizations as the
KKK, Aryan Nation, Army of God and others is also a corrosive influence on our society. Closed minded bigotry, which is the watchword
of such organizations, often hides behind more benevolent political and
religious fronts. Two obviously left
wing links on the subject are given below.
http://www.sklatch.net/thoughtlets/pall.html
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/01/americas-10-worst-terror-attacks-by-christian-fundamentalist-and-far-right-extremists/
The following links present more balanced views: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/chr_rght.htm. http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/religious-extremism/
Any belief system that espouses only their way to the violent exclusion
of any other belief system has to be detrimental to society and civilization in
general. It may hide behind the Bible,
or the Quran or some other holy book.
That doesn’t make it any less a terrorist organization. A violent attack against an abortion clinic
is to be condemned as rigorously as any other belief driven attack in the
Middle East.
26.)
Out of Balance Salaries –
Entertainment, Sport, Finance
Is Giancarlo Stanton of the Miami Marlins worth
$325,000,000 over 2015-27?
Is Alex Rodriguez on the New York Yankees worth
$275,000,000 over 2008-17?
Similarly, in entertainment - Keanu Reeves made
$156,000,000 (with royalties) for the “Matrix” series; Tom Cruise, $100,000,000
for “Mission Impossible 2”.
And then there’s finance. In
finance – We go to billions. Here's what
the top 10 hedge fund managers earned in 2014:
1. Kenneth Griffin, Citadel ($1.3
billion)
2. James Simons, Renaissance
Technologies ($1.2 billion)
3. Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates
($1.1 billion)
4. Bill Ackman, Pershing Square Capital
Management ($950 million)
5. Israel Englander, Millennium
Management ($900 million)
6. Michael Platt, BlueCrest Capital
Management ($800 million)
7. Larry Robbins, Glenview Capital
Management ($570 million)
8. David Shaw, D.E. Shaw Group ($530 million)
9. O. Andreas Halvorsen, Viking Global
Investors ($450 million)
10. Charles Coleman III, Tiger Global
Management ($425 million)
Not to disparage Mr. Griffin, but one might ask is anyone in this world
worth $1.3 billion per year, no matter what they do? The answer often given is free market
capitalism and competition. If we don’t
pay that much, someone else will and we will lose the expertise.
Of course we reward proficiency in any field and strive for the big
bucks. But haven’t we gotten out of balance? In a kinder gentler day I can remember a
conversation in a barbershop in Boston in the 1950’s where Ted Williams’ salary
of $100,000 per year was hotly contested.
Now that’s a few zeros less than A-Rod’s. Ted Williams has the eighth highest batting
average of all major leaguers and ranks with Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Shoeless
Joe Jackson, Tris Speaker and others among the greatest ballplayers of all
time. This is despite his missing six of his potentially most prolific years by
fighting in two wars as a marine fighter pilot. Of course we paid 50 cents to
sit in the bleachers in Fenway Park to watch Williams and the Red Sox play, and
drink 15 cent beers. I nearly caught one of Ted William’s home runs at one of
those games.
Where do these massive payments to individuals come from? The answer is from the public. Current bleacher prices at Fenway are on the
order of $30. Beer most likely costs at
least $5.00. This is Fenway. Other parks are most likely much higher. We pay more and more for sports tickets,
movie tickets and all manner of entertainment.
Someone has to pay the exorbitant salaries quoted above.
What about the hedge fund managers?
The only thing that can be said is if the firm and the firm’s client are
making comparable profits, the hedge fund manager profits as well. It seems way out of proportion and the 10
individuals above are all making massive yearly earnings.
So should something be done about these seemingly out of balance
incomes? Not without upsetting our
capitalist apple cart. Mao tried to
equalize incomes in China, and look how that turned out. It took another Communist, Deng Xiaopeng to
pragmatically move China toward a market economy. Now there are more billionaires in China than
there are in the U.S. http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/15/investing/china-us-billionaires/
Also as individuals accumulate
massive wealth, they turn philanthropist and fund benevolent causes with their
excess wealth. Even the progeny of the
great “robber barons” Morgan, Astor, Rockefeller, et al, fund philanthropic
causes, as do recent billionaires like Walton, Gates, Buffet and others. This benevolent work is done on their own and
hardly needs a government agency to extort through taxes and redistribute this
wealth.
27.)
Trillions of Dollars of Debt
The total debt in the U.S. is on the order of 60
trillion dollars. That’s
$60,000,000,000,000. This consists of
roughly $18 trillion of federal debt and $42 trillion of commercial, consumer
and other debt.
Total world debt is estimated at $230 trillion. The following link refers not only to this
$230 trillion world debt, it also gives voluminous information on U.S. and
world debt issues.
A graphical breakdown of world debt is as follows:
Another incisive article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-17/united-states-debt-total-debt-america-hits-new-record-high-nearly-60-trillion-dollar.
The first link above is RT, which is Russian
funded. However they are a valid factual
source. Quoting from the first link above,
“America
- its government, businesses, and people - are nearly $60 trillion in debt,
according to the latest economic data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve. And
private debt - not government borrowing - is the biggest reason for the huge
deficit. “Total US debt at the end of the first quarter of 2014, on March 31
totaled almost $59.4 trillion - up nearly $500 billion from the end of the
fourth quarter of 2013, according to the data. Total debt (the combination of
government, business, mortgage, and consumer debt) was $2.2 trillion 40 years
ago.”
Who owns this $60 trillion in U.S.
Debt? An interesting interactive graphical look at the approximately $60
trillion total debt and the approximately $18 trillion U.S. Government portion
of this debt is as follows:
There is a massive amount of information on the above graphic.
The following link explains who owns the $18 trillion national debt,
and how the process works. Contrary to
popular belief, Chinese investors own but a fraction of this debt, nearly $1.3
trillion. Japanese investors own just
slightly less, about $1.25 trillion. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-federal-debt-who/.
This Forbes article provides a simpler look: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/10/28/who-owns-the-most-u-s-debt/.
Some
proposed solutions, Paul Ryan’s elevation to Speaker of the House
notwithstanding, are given in the following links. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tombyrne/2011/09/19/how-to-fix-the-us-debt-crisis-the-proven-private-sector-way/.
28.)
China’s Spectacular Progress
I went to China in June, 2015, and I’ll repeat part of
my write-up on my personal impressions of the country.
“Some
general comments on China.
The
overwhelming feature of China is people, people, people and cars, cars, cars.
(Other vehicles, too), in a seemingly chaotic mix. There are 1.4 billion people in China. That’s 500 million more people than the U.S
and E.U. combined. There are more cell
phones in China than the U.S. has people, and they all seem glued to the ears
or thumbs of the people in the cities.
There are over 150 cities in China with a population over 1
million. Cities of 1-2 million people
are called “towns”. China is a massive,
crowded country ruled by an ostensibly communist government with a market
oriented philosophy. That sounds like an
oxymoron, but there it is. Everyone in
the cities is hell-bent toward capitalism and consumerism. Marx and Lenin and Mao are rolling over in
their graves, while Deng Xiaoping smiles in his grave and says “I told you so –
just the way I orchestrated it”
The
Chinese are rules oriented, and people obey the rules without too much
complaint. Dissension is allowed, as
long as it is not too loud. The system is not our system, but it works for
them. The per capita GDP in China in
1985 was $600. In 2015, it is estimated
as $13,800. This is across 1.4 billion
people, and this is absolutely phenomenal growth. Of course these GDP figures are averages, and
the wealth is really concentrated in the large cities and professional
classes. The rural peasants (nearly a
billion of them), really do not share too much in this wealth or in the social
amenities that city residents get. The
goal of most rural Chinese is to get to a city and obtain city based
identification.
This
almost oligarchic social system must be anathema to hard line communists like
Mao Zedong, but Mao tried to equalize the masses and nearly destroyed the
country. Upwards of 30 million people died of famine during Mao’s “great leap
forward”. And another 1.5 million died during his “cultural revolution”. We had
several lectures and discussions during this trip by people who lived through
these social upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s.
Our tour director’s (George’s) parents were among them, and George
expounded on this at some length one afternoon on the Yangtze River.
Mao Zedong
is still considered the founder of the present incarnation of the country. His mummified body lies in Tiananmen
Square. His portrait appears on Chinese
paper money. People now say that he was
“80 percent right and 20 percent wrong”.
Deng Xiaoping is acknowledged as the founder of modern China by instituting
a market oriented economy in the late 70’s.
His technocrat successors have continued Deng’s policies and we can
observe their efficacy by the growth of the Chinese economy over the last 30+
years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping
Although there are no official estimates of the
population of Beijing in 2012, unofficial estimates put the population at
around 21-22 million. Although Beijing
is the capital city of China,
there are larger cities in the country. Shanghai
is home to 23 million people in 2013, and is considered to be China's
largest city. Others, however, argue that Chongqing,
a municipality of 28,846,200 in the center of China
is technically China's
largest city. This is because, although the urban population of Chongqing
is only 6-7 million, under Chinese law a municipality is considered to be the
equivalent of a city. If we take
Chongqing out of the equation, Beijing is the second largest country in China
and the sixth largest city in the world, behind Shanghai,
Istanbul,
Karachi,
Mumbai
and Moscow.
The following is an excellent PhD level introspective
of China’s recent history and current prospects.
China is flexing its muscles after a century of
relative international dormancy and acquiescence. It is taking its place on the international
stage not only in terms of its economy and trade, but also its’ military. It has recently literally built islands in
the South China Sea that could challenge trade routes for 30% of the world’s
sea trade.
What I like to say about the Chinese is that they’ve
been in existence for millennia, and some millennia are good, and some
millennia and centuries not so good. The
last couple of centuries were not so hot, but things are looking up once they
reconciled Marxism with Capitalism (sic).
Quoting from the above paper, “
Prospects
China's spectacular recovery from the stagnant depth of the Maoist
era in the 1945-1975 period is truly remarkable. A recent study by Goldman
Sachs projects that China's economy will be bigger than America's by 2027, and
nearly twice as large by 2050. Some futurologists predict that the world would
by then live under a Pax Sinica with the dollar replaced by the renminbi as
the world's reserve currency, and New York and London replaced by Shanghai as
the centre of finance. Global citizens will use Mandarin as much, if not more,
than English and the thoughts of Confucius will become as familiar as those of
Plato. European countries will become quaint relics of a glorious past, like
Athens and Rome today.
With the West in financial turmoil and its leaders seemingly
desperate for cash-rich China to come to its rescue, Chinese leaders can see
many strategic opportunities: to acquire assets at bargain prices and to
exploit political vacuums in many international hot spots like the Middle East
and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is now the Chinese who are doing the lecturing.
Simplistic political and economic extrapolations, however, do not
take into account the many uncertainties and imponderables that can come into
play. China, like many other countries, also faces the problem of an aging
population, of expectations rising faster than the capacity of their system to
deliver, of the destructive power of corruption and nepotism and the abuse of
political power. The mere logistics of governing this vast country with its
huge population pose gigantic challenges to whichever system of organization
and management that is brought to the task. China is also heavily dependent on
its collaboration with the West: its technology, its markets, its natural
resources and its investments.
Optimistic expectations for the emergence of free, open
constitutional democracy in China are wishful “thought bubbles”. China has
never experienced an open pluralistic society. It has never developed neither
the mindset of civic consciousness nor the associational community-based
framework to serve as a foundation for a democratic infrastructure. Sporadic
and isolated outbursts of discontent may occur, but a deep-rooted democratic
transformation appears to be still decades, if not generations away.
In 2012 Xi Jinping emerged as China’s new party chief and state
president. He is a “princeling” whose father took part in the “Long March” of
1934/1935 in the company of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. A better pedigree in
China is hardly imaginable.
On several public occasions Xi Jinping has indicated that he
considers current China at the cusp of momentous change and reform. Many
foreign observers and commentators expect the third plenum of the 18th central
committee of the Chinese Communist Party to be of seminal importance in
determining the direction of China’s future development.
The main areas of reform that are expected to be focussed on are,
firstly, the improvement of the management efficiency and accountability of the
remaining part of the economy still under control of state economic enterprises
(SOEs) and, secondly, land reform in the countryside to modernise the parts of
the rural economy still under collective control of local party bosses. It
remains to be seen if Mr Xi Jinping will go down in Chinese history as a worthy
successor to the trailblazing work that was done by Deng Xiaoping in the period
1978-1994.”
Will
we go to war with China? The recent posturing over the artificial
islands that China has created in the South China Sea has increased tension
between the U.S. and China. This article
by “The Guardian” is not surprisingly somewhat pro Chinese.
Here is a “Foreign Policy” article that posits that the U.S. and
China are preparing for war.
It’s difficult to imagine that the Obama administration is doing
much along these lines, but China may be surprised if someone like Trump is
elected.
29.)
The World’s Wealth and Debt
Most of the world’s wealth and debt are kept as
electronic data by governments and by the world’s financial institutions. Some wealth is actually physical as described
in this Forbes article.
The following articles on money and how money works
give some insight into the history and current situation regarding wealth and
debt.
In economics, the money
supply or money stock, is the total amount of monetary assets available in an
economy at a specific
time.[1] There are
several ways to define "money," but standard measures usually include
currency
in circulation
and demand
deposits
(depositors' easily accessed assets on the books of financial
institutions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply.
It comes to mind that in future wars,
attacks on countries’ money supplies will not be physical. They will be electronic cyber attacks to
break the encryption around electronic funds.
30.)
Computer
Security
All computers that are connected to the
internet are susceptible to pollution by unwanted programs, some relatively
benign, and some, downright destructive.
Where do these unwanted programs come from? Mostly from juveniles showing off their
prowess with computer code, but recently from more sophisticated programmers
and even from government sponsored hackers.
Microsoft Windows Operating systems account for about 90% of all
computer usage and are also the most susceptible to viruses, spyware and other
malware attacks. Apple, Linux and Android
systems are much less susceptible.
Most home users use Microsoft Windows,
so the above attacks are common. What do
we do to mitigate them? A full
exposition is beyond the scope of this piece, but a few simple things can be
done.
A new Windows computer normally comes
with a 30 or 60 day trial version of antivirus and anti spyware installed. You can buy the software when it expires,
normally for about $30-50 per year. If
you don’t mind spending the money every year, this should provide some measure
of protection. Most people, however, let
the trial version expire, or are not very diligent about keeping software up to
date or renewing the software. Several
things can happen. The computer will
crash or exhibit symptoms that prevent the user from normal activity. The computer will slow down to the point that
it is onerous to use it.
Inconvenience is but one of the effects
of viruses, malware, Trojans, worms, etc.
Some of these malicious programs are aimed at identity theft and
accessing users’ accounts. One called
Cryptolocker will encrypt a machine and demand a ransom to allow access. There all manner of nefarious schemes to
defraud users. Not all malware is
destructive and most of it is just annoying.
But some can cause great harm.
There are several free programs in
addition to the above mentioned paid ones that will alleviate or prevent the
above from happening. Avast and AVG
still have free versions of their antivirus programs available. Use caution when downloading and installing these
because both will try to steer you toward the paid versions. Also go slowly and read carefully when
downloading and installing any “free” programs, because many such programs try
to associate other programs that you probably will not want. Malwarebytes and Ccleaner are two anti
spyware programs that are also “free”.
The same caveats as above apply.
If you use these three free programs diligently, you can keep your
computer free from unwanted programs and operating properly. Another excellent but somewhat technical
antivirus/spyware suite of programs are by Kaspersky, Russian based, but
excellent programs to remove very difficult viruses and spyware.
Another very good idea for modern
computer users is to install and use a VPN (Virtual Private Network). A VPN creates a “tunnel” which essentially
isolates the internet user from prying eyes and keeps their usage private. There are some free ones out there, but these
may be of dubious efficacy, particularly if you are user of Torrents. One very good paid one is VyPrVPN.
An alternative to a VPN is to use a
proxy server directly if you are sufficiently versed in how networks and the
internet works.
Ray Gruszecki
October 30, 2015
